It also depends on the type of vaccine that is used. For example, I have heard that in countries such as Indonesia, Chile and Mongolia, the infection rates have gone up after using the Chinese (Sinovac/Sinopharm) vaccines. So there may be resistance from a large section of the population against using these vaccines. What is the point in taking the vaccine, if it is not effective? Also, the chances of adverse reaction is much higher with Pfizer vaccine, when compared to other vaccines (as much as 10x). These factors can discourage a lot of people from taking the vaccine.

I don't agree. They already postponed it once. There is no point in postponing it further, since the next edition is supposed to take place in 2024. Olympics is the largest sporting event in the globe and it happens only once every four years. If it is postponed or cancelled, tens of thousands of athletes may never get a chance to compete at this level again (for many of the athletes, the peak performance lasts only for 4-5 years). The risk is there, but it is very low. All the athletes and the remaining members of the staff are vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. On top of that, they are not allowing any spectators. Any chance of someone getting infected with COVID at the venue is very low. 

bitmover has already answered the concerns raised by the OP. One question to the OP - if Bitcoin is so attractive to the criminals, then why the usage of BTC for illegal purposes is going down? And increasingly we are hearing reports about BTC from criminal proceedings seized by the authorities. BTC may be easier to use, but it is not anonymous and can be traced back to the individual with some effort. That explains why fiat cash remains the preferred medium for the criminals. And regarding the SHA-256 Algorithm - it will remain safe for the next two decades at least. If needed, the developers will issue a hard fork and move to a more secure algorithm.

I slightly disagree. An asset needs to have a value that doesn't go down drastically in the long term to be used as a store of value. If the value goes up in the long-term, then it is not an issue. And I don't think that stability and predictability needs to be there. If that is the case, then even gold can't be termed as a store of value. Because during the 2011-16 period, gold prices went down by 40%. If you talk about US treasury bonds, then in fiat terms the value is stable. But the returns are only around 1.1%-1.2% per year, while the current inflation rate is in the 5%-6% range.

No. It is not within their power to seize these assets. And that is the reason why the judge (Steve Kim) rejected the request from the FBI to keep the valuables with themselves. The judge was very clear when he said that if the FBI want to seize these assets, then they need to present solid evidence to prove that they are proceedings from crime (FBI was arguing for the reverse scenario - the owners should first present evidence to claim that these assets are not linked to any criminal transaction). So we can say that at least in this instance, the FBI is not getting what they wanted.

This is why I always argue in favor of limiting the number of threads the noobs can post in this forum. Look at the title and the post. It creates a lot of confusion and is very vague. I still don't understand what the OP mean by "infinite". Is it related to the supply, or with regards to the survival of Bitcoin? In both cases, he is wrong. Bitcoin supply is not infinite. Even someone with basic understanding of Bitcoin knows that. Do we need a separate thread to discuss it? And regarding the survival of Bitcoin, like any other technological innovation, at some point of time in the future, Bitcoin also will be replaced by a better technology.

A few years ago, I believe that renewable sources of energy are not viable, because they are much more expensive when compared to fossil fuels. But the technological advancement in this field has made wind/solar/tidal/geothermal energy very competitive when compared to the other sources. One big issue is with oil. While renewable sources of electricity will be able to replace coal and natural gas in electricity generation, there exists no good alternative for gasoline driven vehicles. EVs are 2-3 times more expensive when compared to gasoline driven vehicles. I just hope that this situation will change in the near future.

It's not just Cuba and Venezuela. Paraguay is about to introduce a new bill on cryptocurrency regulation and there have been a lot of hype regarding it in the market. I don't expect anything revolutionary coming out of it (similar to what happened in El Salvador). But it is gladdening that most of the world seems to be moving in the right direction with respect to cryptocurrency (obviously there are a few exceptions, such as China and Vietnam). Those countries which take a more conciliatory approach towards cryptocurrency will benefit in the future, because it represents the next big thing in technology. China is going to regret, because CBDC can never replace cryptocurrency.

Well... T20 format favors unpredictable teams such as Pakistan and West Indies. That said, the credit for yesterday's win should go solely to the batsmen. Without such an imposing total, Pakistani bowlers could have struggled to contain the England batsmen. The required run rate was almost 12 runs per over, and for the inexperienced England batsmen, it was a tough task. The big question here is whether Pakistan can perform well against the regular England players. What will happen in case the regular bowlers such as Sam Curran, Chris Jordan, Chris Woakes and Adil Rashid are available? The England XI for yesterday's match was more like a second string side. 

Right now, Cummins is their best available bowler. Starc is getting more and more wayward. Starc/Cummins is not the right bowling combination, because both of them rely on raw pace rather than good line and length. One better alternative would be Starc/Hazlewood or Cummins/Hazlewood.

IMO, I would rank the teams like this for the T20 World Cup:

1. West Indies
2. India
3. New Zealand
4. England
5. Australia

I have given a higher ranking for India, because I guess they will be able to adjust with the conditions in UAE/Oman better than the other teams.

The problem is that 70% to 80% vaccination rate is needed to achieve herd immunity. If large sections remain unvaccinated, then the herd immunity can never be achieved. And there is another risk factor as well. If the infection rate doesn't subside, then there is a greater chance of new mutations with the virus. And eventually there will be a mutation which produces a vaccine-resistant strain of the virus. And that will push back all the efforts by two years and if that happens then the vaccines need to be invented yet again. 

You can't compare women's cricket to other women's sport such as football, basketball and hockey. For the ICC, the primary concern is revenue and not the popularity of the sport. As long as the revenues remain low for women's cricket, neither the ICC, nor the national cricket boards are not going to take it seriously. CA, CNZ and ECB are forced to give more attention, because of the gender equality laws prevailing in their countries. But for Asian nations, I don't see any improvement in the situation in foreseeable future.

Most of the progress that has been made against poverty during the last decade has been undone by the pandemic. In the worst affected countries such as Brazil and India, the number of people living in extreme poverty has gone up drastically. And the full impact from the pandemic is yet to appear. It will be visible in the next one or to years, as the governments run out of money for their stimulus packages. It is going to be difficult times for people across all social and economic classes. And the effects will be more amplified for those without significant savings.

It may or may not be due to the sand paper scandal. But for the last many years, his form has remained poor. As you mentioned, once in a blue moon he performs like a world class bowler. But on majority of the occasions, he is quite ordinary. But the problem for Australia is that he's still their best bowler. This is not the Australian team we had one or two decades ago. Perhaps Mitchell Johnson was their last world class bowler. After he retired in 2018, Australian bowling has struggled, especially in pace department. Also, Starc used to perform well when he bowled in tandem with Mitchell Johnson.

This is not a good sign. It looks like the COVID situation in England is once again worsening. I am quite surprised, because they have achieved more than 60% vaccination. The Delta variant seems to be resistant to the vaccines to some degree, and that is probably causing the spike in England. But my biggest worry is that once again the matches will be called off and we will be having a situation similar to what happened in 2020. Already many of the bilateral series have been postponed. If there is any more disruption, then these matches will be called off.

Starc has the experience, but he is very inconsistent. And bowlers such as Starc and Meredith are like express pace bowlers and they are more suitable for the test format rather than the shorter formats. In T20, there is no room for error. Bowlers like Starc sprays ball all over the place and that sort of bowling is not suitable for T20. And especially so, if they are playing against a team like the West Indies. The only Australian bowler who I believe has the capability to bowl well in shorter format is Josh Hazlewood. Mitchell Marsh may be another one, but he is not a full time bowler.

In terms of technology and transaction fee, Binance Smart Chain may be better. But in cryptocurrency sector, there is a lot of importance for decentralization. And at least nominally, Ethereum is decentralized. That can't be said about the BSC, because it was created by the Binance exchange. Let me give an example. Let's say that a court in the United States has ordered a certain cryptocurrency transaction to be reversed and the tokens/coins to be seized. We all know that it is not possible with Ethereum, since the promoters don't have the power to do that. But the case with BSC is different. They can (at least theoretically) freeze the coins/tokens and seize them.

IMO, Bitcoin will be able to achieve it's peak valuation in another 10 years or so (~2030). I don't want to predict the scenario for very distant future, because similar to other technological innovations, Bitcoin also has a limited shelf-life. In fact it is surprising that despite so much of competition from technologically superior altcoins such as Cardano, Polkadot and Chainlink, none of them have even come close to topple Bitcoin from the top position. Anyway, I am skeptical about Bitcoin surviving for the very distant future. The current format for private keys are not going to hold for more than 10-15 years from now. Either Bitcoin will be replaced, or it will undergo hard-forks to remove the vulnerabilities.

Here in India, I have heard about a great number of sim-swap attacks (although none of the cases involved cryptocurrency). Users have lost huge amounts of cash (obviously fiat) in these attacks. Now the mobile companies have introduced several precautions against this measure. For example, if you are de-activating your SIM card and getting another one with the same number, then it will be activated only after 24 hours. That means that you can't receive any SMS or calls for 24-hour duration. And in case the SIM swap is done through fraudulent means, then the victim has enough time with him to report the incident to the telecom provider and revert the process.

I completely agree with the OP. It is stupidity from the part of the governments to believe that they can curb the spread of cryptocurrency by laws, prohibitions and regulations. Individuals will continue to invest in cryptocurrency, because inflation will make all the other assets less attractive in the future. Apart from gold, Bitcoin is the only asset that is protected against inflation. And in order to deter people, the government needs to arrest millions of individuals and put them in jail. I don't think that they have the courage for all that.